Browsing through the database today, I got to thinking about where we are as far as regional market share. Let's look at Delta for example. Their mainline fleet is about the same in #s as DCI aircraft. That is a lot of fuel being used and many of the markets would do just fine with a 50 seat prop. The Q400 is a great a/c but the seat count may be a bit quite a few destinations that has not seen anything over 50 seats in about 10 or so years. US/Piedmont seems to be happy with their 100s and 200s.

Perhaps the S340 was not quite the size that they were looking for but then again, from all indications, NW loved them. Pretty much all Georgia-Atlanta flights could be done with a prop of the right seating capacity as well the likes of MGM, DHN, TUP, CHA, TRI, GSP (mix of jets a props maybe), OAJ. And this is just for ATL. Same can be done for MEM, MSP, and I will dare to say LGA.

The way things are going with scope, I don't think it's a matter of if but when. What a/c are out there can can fill the role?

That's the crux of it aIl, I think. No suitable prop at this time, from what I hear.
You'd think someone has a solution to few hundred miles flying...
US airlines are also dealing with a huge perception issue though, with props.

I wish the F27 Friendship was still around...or a new turbo version.

[Edited 2010-09-25 16:47:23]

Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.

The 2nd issue is the death of the sub 250nm market due to TSA waits. I used to be mocked by friends for showing up to an airport 45 minutes before a flight... ahhh... the good days prior to the TSA. Due to long security waits, most of the turboprop markets are now easier drives.

I often wonder if props would have saved service to small communities like Stockton, CA. But on the other hand, UAE had prop service to Stockton and discontinued it. Allegiant is doing great with service to LAS with jets and has begun service to Long Beach that seems to also, be doing well. America West Express seemed to have done well with their RJs to Phoenix. It must be Stockton, a history of irregular service after deregulation and prop image.

Ten years ago when I was a ramper @ ATL for ASA, some routes like ATL-CHA, ATL-TRI, ATL-MYR, ATL-CRW, ATL-GSP, and ATL-GPT were a mix of turboprops and CRJs (ATL-MCN had a mix of a/c, but this was because of the maintenance base at MCN . The CRJs were typically used for longer routes like ATL-IAH, ATL-SBN, ATL-ORH, ATL-ISP, ATL-MHT, ATL-DAL, ATL-SWF, ATL-HPN, ATL-OMA, ATL-YYZ, ATL-MTY, ATL-SAT, ATL-XNA, routes that were for the most part longer than 90 minutes.

When they started to replace the Brasilia and ATRs with the CRJ-200 and 700, that was perhaps not the smartest idea long term, but at that point, the airline environment was different than it is today.

The majority of Delta Connection routes under 90 minutes would be more economically served with turboprop a/c than with regional jets. Unfortunately, the turboprop market is rather limited in regards to new-build a/c. The Dash 8-400Q is not the one-size-fits-all solution in regards to a new-built a/c. In some respects, the ATR-42/72 is, but I think that ship sailed when ASA retired their ATR-72s. Embraer is still taking orders for the E-120 Brasilia, but orders these days are typically on-off orders. I think that ASA and Comair perhaps retired the type too early, as most of the routes the Saabs are flying out of ATL would have been ideal Brasilia routes. ASA could have ordered brand-new Brasilias to replace their fleet.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 1):US airlines are also dealing with a huge perception issue though, with props.

The airlines created the perception during the glory days of the CRJ2. Every small city was told that they were worthy of jet service in the 90's/00's. Now that the costs to operate a 50 seat jet are much higher, those communities are going to have to join the airlines in marketing modern small turboprop service.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):Until enough props are out of a given type, no one will buy them as the economics must be excellent due to the small sub-fleets that are likely.

Not exactly. If a regional has a fleet of 50 turboprops of a given model, they have economics of scale. Those 50 airplanes don't have to fly for one partner. My guess? Someone will figure this out and approach both the airlines and communities interested in keeping service. Pinnacle may be looking at this since they are allegedly looking for a way to keep the Mesaba saab fleet around, and add to the at-risk saab flying they have been doing at Colgan.

In particular, the upgauging from 19 to 30+ seats had a profound impact on the service pattern at many smaller communities as the additional capacity couldn't be supported at the same frequency of 19 seat schedules. The subsequent winnowing of skeds helped make the auto the transport node of choice for trips of 250 miles or less.
In the case of the latter (capacity restrictions), the planes could no longer be employed to their fullest economic potential.

These points are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, when other economic factors (i.e., fuel and maintenance costs) are factored.

I think that a return to widespread t-prop usage in the regional segment is an inevitability. But, I'd suggest the ROIC will be so great that the present level of regional service will shrink.

With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 1):US airlines are also dealing with a huge perception issue though, with props.

But that perception, particularly in the US, was created by the airlines. Therefore, it is the airlines themselves who can change it back.

Perception or not, in the short-mid term a lot of small communities in the US will have to choose between prop or no air service at all. The days fo 20$ oil are gone forever, and we'll be back at 100$ sooner rather than later, which will further increase the ecconomic advantage of props versus RJ's.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 1):No suitable prop at this time, from what I hear.

The Q400 and ATR's are very suitable aircraft in the 50-70 seat class. If you're talking about 19-30 seats, I agree there is no a/c out there, but I doubt there is a market below 50 seats at all (apart from some niches) when even the 50-seat market is being questioned.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 2):The 2nd issue is the death of the sub 250nm market due to TSA waits. I used to be mocked by friends for showing up to an airport 45 minutes before a flight... ahhh... the good days prior to the TSA. Due to long security waits, most of the turboprop markets are now easier drives.

And that's nothing, imagine if you guys had efficient rail service like the EU... indeed, the ever-increasing security is making short-haul flying less and less competitive.

Quoting toltommy (Reply 6):
The airlines created the perception during the glory days of the CRJ2. Every small city was told that they were worthy of jet service in the 90's/00's. Now that the costs to operate a 50 seat jet are much higher, those communities are going to have to join the airlines in marketing modern small turboprop service.

Not too hard to sell it as being more environmentally friendly. It's true and fashionable.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 13):Not too hard to sell it as being more environmentally friendly. It's true and fashionable.

It may very well be true, but I'm guessing only about 20% of Americans would find environmental friendliness important enough to take it seriously, and most of them probably avoid flying altogether as much as possible. Another 20% or so might actively *avoid* anything that looked or sounded environmentally friendly. By my reckoning you'd have a net loss of enthusiasm for your aircraft if you made the environment the primary focus of your sales pitch.